Transcript Highlights:

• These projects will ensure that we.
• Issue 2 details debt service costs for capital projects at the type.
• The project construction is expected to continue until April 2026.
• We also provide a range of technical assistance. to private landowners.
• The project is called.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So anything that can have private insurance or is privately owned doesn't count toward the threshold.
• There are 615 flood mitigation projects, and those are more substantial construction projects.
• We have project priority lists.
• The rationale behind doing that is that flood projects, unlike water projects or wastewater projects,
• for a wastewater project.

Keywords: flooding, emergency response, communication systems, first responders, disaster management, Texas Water Development Board, regional planning, public safety

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on discussions around the recent floods in Texas, specifically addressing emergency preparedness, response coordination, and recovery efforts. Officials from various agencies provided testimonies on the challenges faced during the emergency, including issues with communication systems among first responders. Notably, the need for improved inter-agency communication and technology integration was emphasized, with recommendations for establishing regional communications units for better coordination during disasters. The audience included local government representatives and emergency management partners, who shared insights and experiences from the recent flooding events.

Transcript Highlights:

• She did not ask how the project was going. I did not tell her how the project was going.
• Did she bill to the project? Did she know of the project? Did she bill to the project?
• And at first, when I first got elected, Civil Survival Project was a project at the Public Defender Association
• involvement in that project going forward?
• And he wanted to talk about the project, the data dashboard project, the proviso.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing resumed on day two of the Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding matter involving Representative Tara Simmons. After opening remarks and confirmation that board members had not engaged in outside research or ex parte communications, Simmons’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she improperly combined a legislative proviso for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and private conduct were intertwined and that the board had enough evidence to require a defense. After deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear defense testimony. The first defense witness, Sharon Navas, testified that she met Simmons through advocacy work, later hired her at the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), and maintained written employment policies intended to separate Simmons’s legislative role from her work for EEC. Navas said Simmons was never compensated for lobbying or legislative acts, that EEC paid her from unrestricted funds, and that Simmons did not work on the AEJG dashboard project or participate in the contract dispute with Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley. Navas described the proviso request and later contract issues as separate from Simmons’s legislative duties, and said she continued to pay invoices while the project was being completed. Simmons then testified about her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics advice before taking outside employment or pursuing provisos. She said she repeatedly consulted House ethics counsel and reviewed prior board decisions to ensure her outside work and legislative actions were separated. Simmons described her relationship with Anthony Powers, the dashboard project, the proviso process, and her understanding that the work was distinct from her legislative role. The hearing paused for lunch after part of Simmons’s direct examination, with testimony set to continue after the break.

Transcript Highlights:

• Therefore, the most effective way to bring down housing prices is to encourage the private sector to
• But what government can do is step aside, cut the red tape, and encourage the private sector to build
• You get smaller projects. Then you get smaller projects that take two years to get done.
• creative about how we got projects done more quickly.
• Glacier, I wonder if you can speak to the need to really better allocate private capital into projects

Keywords: affordable housing, government investment, barriers, legislative solutions, public testimony

Summary: The committee meeting focused on addressing the significant issue of affordable housing in America. Members expressed concern over the persistent barriers faced in the housing sector, despite substantial government investment aimed at alleviating these issues. It was highlighted that government interference plays a critical role in complicating the housing landscape, and discussions revolved around potential legislative approaches to mitigate these challenges. Several witnesses provided testimony, contributing to a thorough exploration of the topic.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are projects for modernization.
• this project is finishing.
• We also have participation from the private sector, and we need to get the private sector involved.
• Though there are other projects.
• project with a hyperscaler.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:43.280> We've package of the full project. We've package of the full project.
• , the Braemar Park project, and the Fred Richards Park project.
• , the Braemar Park project, and the Fred Richards Park project.
• , the Braemar Park project, and the Fred Richards Park project.
• , the Braemar Park project, and the Fred Richards Park project.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And when you're saying the primary source is federal funding for capital projects, do you have any projection
• So as of right now, we're seeing a lot of interest from the private industry And the private industry
• Our goal Is more to support private industry to do that.
• Plan projects us having 25% less water by 2070, which is a lot.
• Then, they will no longer be private.

Transcript Highlights:

• This outdated limit restricts the state's ability to contract with small businesses on larger projects
• We're limiting access to opportunities that better reflect today's market costs and project needs for
• And we also know that some of those projects are underway.
• Folks are now in the pool for multiple projects. So when we're ...that it's not one project.
• Folks are now in the pool for multiple projects.

Summary: The committee heard several measures focused on economic development, procurement, workforce equity, federal infrastructure funding, and food security. SB 1044 by Senator Reyes would raise and then index to inflation the cap for streamlined state contracts awarded to certified small businesses, microbusinesses, and disabled veteran business enterprises for services and IT work; supporters said the current cap is outdated and limits access, while opponents representing goods suppliers and some small business groups argued the bill could disadvantage goods contractors and should preserve lower thresholds for those contracts. After discussion about the ceiling versus floor effect of the cap and the impact on different types of businesses, the bill was approved as amended and sent to Appropriations. SB 247 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas would create a bid preference for projects that hire workers from disadvantaged communities; supporters framed it as a way to connect public infrastructure spending to family-sustaining jobs, while union construction employers opposed it because they said they cannot control worker dispatch through hiring halls and the bill would be difficult to implement. The committee advanced the measure to Appropriations despite those concerns. The committee also approved SJR 6 by Senator Cortese, which urges the federal government to honor commitments under the bipartisan infrastructure law, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act, with supporters emphasizing the importance of certainty for California infrastructure, clean energy, and semiconductor investments. SB 1025 by Senator Hurtado would establish an Office of Food Security and Affordability to coordinate food assistance efforts and develop a statewide food security strategy; supporters from a Kern County food bank and the University of California said the state’s response to hunger is fragmented and needs better coordination, while committee members asked about deliverables and timelines. The bill was sent to Appropriations. The committee also took up consent items SB 700 and SB 1340, which were moved on consent to Appropriations, and the hearing ended with the remaining votes recorded and the bills advanced. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly discussed the need for clearer implementation details, data on program impacts, and how to balance equity goals with operational realities for state agencies, contractors, and small businesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• How are those projects chosen?
• How are those projects chosen?
• city and private financing. city and private financing.
• landowner or a private landlord.
• <01:10:08.880> uh private land owner or a private uh private land owner or a private uh landlord

Bills: HF3425, HF3424, HF1385

Keywords: supportive housing, grants, housing assistance, funding, Minnesota Statutes, eviction, rent, nonpayment of rent, landlord-tenant, residential tenant, notice to quit, unlawful detainer, housing, lease violation, late fees, rental assistance, legal aid, tenant rights, Minnesota Statutes 504B.321, pre-eviction notice

Transcript Highlights:

• rate of avoiding privatization. rate of avoiding privatization.
• private interests. private interests. And<00:11:52.640> then<00:11:52.760> Mr.
• for for a given project. Uh yes, Mr. for for a given project. Uh yes, Mr.
• project costs, cost overruns, projects project costs, cost overruns, projects last<00:16:33.800>
• projects on time.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, it's a better project.
• Yeah, it's a better project. Well, guy. Yeah, it's a better project.
• >> Well, you're talking about the private >> Well, you're talking about the private
• private. That's handled by the houses. private. That's handled by the houses.
• <00:34:01.840> we<00:34:02.080> said private private aspect and and we said private

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I wonder, does this apply to private property? Does that owner then pay its due diligence?
• that are coming up, so lines aren't being put down when projects are on the planning.
• is proposed. provider to help reduce costs when a roadway project is proposed.
• And these relocation projects... Only $258,000.
• And these relocation projects can often cost well into the six figures.

Summary: The committee first took up HB 703 on utility relocation, as amended by a strike-all. The sponsor said the bill would require government authorities that order communication service providers to move infrastructure to pay the relocation costs, clarify expedited timelines, and align the House bill with the Senate version. Supporters argued the communication services tax should help cover these costs, while cities and counties warned the bill would shift major unfunded costs to local governments and taxpayers, especially in fiscally constrained counties. After public testimony from local government and industry representatives and debate over fairness, coordination, and the tax’s intended use, the committee adopted the strike-all and then passed the bill favorably on a roll call vote. The committee then heard and passed CS/HB 379, a securities package updating Chapter 517. The bill and conforming amendment made several technical and policy changes, including expanding certain exemptions, updating foreign jurisdiction and exchange considerations, revising merger-and-acquisition broker rules, aligning fingerprinting requirements with FBI standards, and adding protections related to financial exploitation of specified adults. Industry and Office of Financial Regulation witnesses supported the measure, and the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably without opposition. Next, the committee passed CS/HB 867 establishing the Coastal Link Commuter Rail Service Act to create a legal framework for commuter rail operations along Florida’s coastal corridor and to help Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties secure insurance and indemnification for service on the Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way. The Florida Chamber supported the bill, and it was reported favorably without debate. The committee also passed CS/HB 1161, which revises Florida’s deepfake law to require covered platforms to remove altered sexual depictions and copies upon request by the victim; the bill drew emotional testimony from a student victim and broad support from members, and a severability amendment was adopted before the bill passed unanimously. The committee then passed CS/HB 453 on pool and spa contractors, which updates Chapter 489 terminology and scope-of-practice rules and, through amendment, limits certain equipment to commercially available products. Finally, the committee passed HB 955 requiring all private employers to use E-Verify for new hires, removing the small-employer exemption. Supporters framed it as workforce integrity and rule-of-law legislation, while opponents warned about labor shortages, burdens on small businesses, and impacts on immigrant workers. After debate, the bill passed 19-3. The committee then began hearing CS/HB 541 on minimum wage requirements, which would allow voluntary waivers of minimum wage for certain internships, pre-apprenticeships, and on-the-job training; the sponsor presented an amendment limiting the duration and clarifying minor waivers, and the committee heard both support from small business groups and opposition from labor, immigrant, and worker advocates before the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• The MISR project and the CCWIS project are massive, very important projects.
• We want to turn seven-year projects into five-year and four-year projects.
• We want to turn 12-year projects into seven-year projects.
• It's a big project; it doesn't just get thrown together by some private individual overnight or something
• project.

Transcript Highlights:

• project, you receive two monthly bills.
• over 70 megawatts of projects right here in Delaware.
• So you will go through a screening process, which will be handled by the private sector.
• So you will go through a screening process, which will be handled by the private sector.
• I mean, I've been on projects. They flag different wetlands.

Bills: SB9

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met to consider two Senate bills. SB 321, with Senate Amendment 1, would change community solar billing so subscribers receive one consolidated utility bill instead of separate bills from the utility and the solar provider. Supporters said the bill would simplify enrollment and payment, improve customer retention—especially for low-income customers—and include safeguards such as guaranteed savings and an escrow mechanism to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers. After public testimony from solar developers, the Public Advocate, the Sierra Club, and others, the committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, so the vote was circulated to absent members and the bill was later reported out for floor action. The committee then heard SB 9, with Senate Amendment 1, a long-negotiated wetlands protection bill. The sponsor and DNREC explained that it would create a state non-tidal wetlands program with exemptions for certain agricultural, conservation, and routine activities, general permits for some lower-impact projects, and individual permits for higher-value wetlands. Witnesses described the bill as a compromise among environmental, agricultural, development, and local government stakeholders, while some members raised questions about flooding, landowner impacts, wetland delineation, and the role of the regulatory advisory committee. Public testimony was broadly supportive from environmental groups, the Farm Bureau, builders, engineers, and affordable housing advocates. The committee then voted to release SB 9 from committee. At the end of the meeting, members offered thanks and remarks recognizing the chair’s service and leadership on environmental and energy issues. Both bills were ultimately released from committee and reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and got the project.
• Now is overseeing the project.
• So statute says that if a project is over a million, The statute says that if a project is over a million
• , $3 million projects, $8 million projects through sole source, even though there are other builders
• builders out there, other roofers, that would love to bid on this project.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The meeting covered a long series of bills, mostly in health, education, commerce, federalism, and government. In health, members discussed radiology technology updates (HB 2050), a tribal Medicaid waiver/drawdown measure with no state cost (HB 2177), an emergency medicine study committee (HB 2183), fetal death certificate and remains-transfer requirements (HB 2184), a physician assistant licensure compact (HB 2190), dementia care telemonitoring funding (HB 2202), SNAP error-rate reduction and fraud/eligibility oversight bills (HB 2206, HB 2442, HB 2797), child welfare protections like credit freezes and recorded interviews (HB 2321, HB 2322), and podiatric licensure compacts (HB 2438). Several of these were described as consent-calendar items, while HB 2206 and the SNAP-related measures drew discussion about fraud reduction, administrative burden, and work requirements. In commerce and finance, the committee heard bills on mobile food vendors and local permits (HB 2118), earned wage access services with fee caps and disclosure rules (HB 2309), CPA licensure changes (HB 2476), cash acceptance for retail purchases under $100 (HB 2555), drone delivery and unmanned aircraft guardrails (HB 2875), timeshare salesperson licensing (HB 2877), and a prohibition on state-mandated social credit scoring in lending decisions (HB 2903). The tax and retirement-related items included 529 plan conformity and Roth IRA transfer rules (HB 2477), annual tax conformity to the Internal Revenue Code (HB 2785), ASRS technical and disability-related changes (HB 2089, HB 2090, HB 2092), and a bill on employee health insurance definitions (HB 2089). The Arizona Commerce Authority bill (HB 2754) would add legislative members to the board and shift more control over trade offices and Arizona Competes Fund spending to the legislature. The education section focused heavily on school governance and finance. Bills included patriotic youth group presentations in schools (HB 2312), school board term limits (HB 2318), mandatory training for governing board members (HB 2379), independent municipal advisors for bond elections (HB 2320), restrictions on districts buying operating charter/private school sites to game enrollment formulas (HB 2376), conflict-of-interest limits for school facilities board architects and engineers (HB 2378), public meeting and travel transparency rules for districts (HB 2380), limits on long-term school property leases and reporting requirements (HB 2384), tighter bidding rules for school construction job orders using Building Renewal Grant funds (HB 2482), and a voluntary computer science proficiency seal (HB 2764). Sponsors repeatedly framed these as transparency, accountability, and anti-abuse measures, while some opposition centered on local flexibility, housing use, and existing training providers. In federalism and government, the committee heard bills to give counties more time to mail sample ballots (HB 2006), require courts to identify veterans at first appearance for possible veterans court referral (HB 2226), study veterans’ awareness of benefits (HB 2406), broaden military leave protections (HB 2663), require SAVE verification for voter registration and certain state services (HB 2806), require U.S.-sourced voting machine components by 2029 (HB 2901), affirm the Electoral College (HB 2902), and establish due process protections for justice of the peace courts against outside administrative action (HB 2976). Government committee items included a later deadline for library trustees’ annual reports (HB 2129), a two-year limit on certain adult protective services reports to the Attorney General (HB 2228), and an exemption for public and semi-public cold plunges from ADEQ spa rules (HB 2439). Several bills were reported as consent-calendar items, and a number of sponsors noted committee votes, fiscal neutrality, or favorable testimony in support of the measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• before you this morning is an anticipatory instrument based upon the current economic development projects
• in New Orleans East, my district 100, as well as some anticipated economic development projects that
• containerized and bulk cargo, with thousands of acres of land in New Orleans East that are owned privately
• Orleans so that we can figure out a way to put those back in development to support the ongoing projects
• This body is around the takings of private property for eminent domain purposes.

Bills: HR307, SB228

Keywords: expropriation, redevelopment, New Orleans East, blighted properties, task force, urban development, environmental remediation, property rights, community engagement, economic development, 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:36:11.440> public the private and outofstate public the private and outofstate public
• private licenses private career licenses private licenses private career schools<00:36:58.560> in<
• nation due largely to the private nation due largely to the private support<00:43:46.880> of<
• <01:37:16.719> medical you know, it is a private medical you know, it is a private medical
• of Minnesota system and the privates of Minnesota system and the privates that<01:42:21.520>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2312 and first adopted the DE1 amendment, after which the amended bill was discussed. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the spreadsheet and explained the bill’s higher education budget changes, including increases for state grants and tribal college assistance, unchanged funding for several existing programs, and reductions or eliminations for items such as state work study, summer academic enrichment, student loan counseling, concurrent enrollment, and the student parent support initiative. Staff also noted transfers to special revenue funds, the cancellation and reappropriation of ALS research funding, and a new licensing/registration revenue item. The committee was told the bill met the committee’s zero target overall, with a net general fund change of zero relative to the February forecast, while also adding some non-general fund expenditures for program licensing and registration. Members asked several questions about the transfers and specific line items, including whether any new special revenue accounts were being created, the foster care wraparound services line, and the treatment of the University of Minnesota and Centric Care partnership. Staff explained that the transfers generally did not create new accounts, that some items were not in the base, and that the U of M/Centric Care partnership was a one-time appropriation in the prior bill but was now being built into the base at a different amount. The University of Minnesota section also included new or continued funding for medical school development, health training restoration, emergency assistance grants, ALS research, and a weather resiliency program, while the Mayo Foundation section eliminated funding for Mayo Medical School and the Mayo family medicine residency program. The policy portion of the DE1 was then introduced. It included a maximum tuition and fee amount for state grants, direct appropriation of emergency assistance grants to Minnesota State, a juvenile justice appropriation for Metropolitan State University, and the ALS research reappropriation to the University of Minnesota. It also contained repealers for unfunded programs, including a delayed repealer for the student parent support initiative. In the higher education policy article, the bill would allow Minnesota State to offer applied doctoral degrees in cybersecurity, make technical changes to hunger-free campus and sexual misconduct procedures, extend pregnant and parenting student protections to private institutions, allow OHE to retain up to 10% of certain competitive grants for administration, consolidate reports, change the state grant formula so negative FAFSA contributions count as zero, and reduce the state grant lifetime credit cap from 180 to 120 credits. The Northstar Promise provisions would limit tuition and fees to resident rates and require MnState, and request the University of Minnesota, to ensure eligible students receive the benefit.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is going to support our DSH infrastructure projects and an additional seven projects for 625 beds
• and assist with IT project approval lifecycle.
• An analysis of claims settlement IT project and assist with IT project approval lifecycle and development
• Many of the applications explicitly specify public-private partnerships.
• , offset by a slight increase in food inflation projections.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• WHEREAS PRIVATE POSTSECONDARY SECTOR INCLUDES THE 32 INSTITUTIONS THAT MAKE UP A PRIVATE COLLEGES AND
• THE SLIDE YOU SEE, WE HAVE DEPENDING ON PROJECT TIMELINES, PROJECTS FADE IN, FADE OUT.
• WHERE WE ARE SUPPORTING THEM ON VARIOUS PROJECTS. PIECES HERE OR THERE.
• I CAN THINK NOW OF 20 SOME ODD DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN OUR PROJECT ACTIVITIES.
• THAT PROJECT IS UNDERWAY, WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT IT.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is going to support our DSH infrastructure projects and an additional seven projects for 625 beds
• and assist with IT project approval lifecycle.
• An analysis of claims settlement IT project and assist with IT project approval lifecycle and development
• , offset by a slight increase in food inflation projections.
• enrollment, the cost falls on private insurance.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health heard presentations on several May Revision proposals, beginning with an overview from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance on the state’s budget condition and the administration’s efforts to reduce out-year deficits through a mix of revenue measures, fund shifts, and program reductions. The chair expressed support for some administration proposals, such as added health IT funding, county administration support, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some immigrants, and additional Covered California subsidy backfill, but also criticized proposed Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other cuts affecting counties, workforce, and rural access. The LAO said the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing and urged more reserves and caution on new commitments. The Department of State Hospitals presented several proposals, including reduced county bed billing authority, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of unspent prior-year funds, additional lease revenue authority for the Metro Central Utility Plant replacement, funding for electronic health record implementation, and a shift of workforce development costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds. The department also described savings and realignments in its IST and CONREP programs, including making the Independent Placement Panel permanent and adjusting funding for jail-based competency treatment and conditional release services. Members questioned the BHSA workforce funding swap, and the administration said it was part of a broader General Fund offset strategy. The Emergency Medical Services Authority requested funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for continued operation of its enterprise systems, and the Department of Managed Health Care sought funds to modernize its complaint system and claims settlement data systems. The largest debate centered on the administration’s proposed use of Behavioral Health Services Act revenues to offset General Fund spending and fund state-directed behavioral health programs. The Department of Finance said the proposal would support population-based prevention, workforce programs, mobile crisis services, and other state-directed uses, while the LAO said it was still reviewing whether the uses comply with Proposition 1 and whether the non-supplement and eligible-use requirements are met. The Commission for Behavioral Health strongly opposed proposed cuts to its Innovation Partnership Fund and community advocacy grants, arguing that both programs are central to community voice, culturally responsive services, and statewide innovation. Commissioners and many public commenters said the cuts would reduce grants to community-based organizations, tribal groups, veterans, LGBTQ communities, youth, and other underserved populations, and that the advocacy program helps communities participate in local planning and access services. The Department of Finance defended the reductions as a way to prioritize direct services and said the programs fit within Proposition 1, but members criticized the proposal as a midstream shift that would weaken community engagement and redirect funds away from prevention and advocacy.